*cough cough* starhopper, SN5, SN6 *cough cough*

@@BearyK8 it blew up, and went about 5 metres in the air

@Starhopper more like 100 meters into the air. I meant the first full starship prototype to fly.

Launch 2 wasn't that comfortable 🤕

Landing unsuccessfull, was not vertical and burned

Lol

I call that the fastest reusable rocket

No ten

Talk about a fast turnaround,

Can't Elon find adults to cover his flights? This annoying gaggle of giggling, cackling, hooting, howling fanboys know their stuff, and I understand their excitement, but they really need to control their moaning and groaning, oohing and aahing, squealing and guffawing. Make it about Starship, not personalities and wisecracks.

Dear 3D4U: Very witty observation, and I’ll bet they never, ever, beat that record in normal operations. Something to shoot for though! Best wishes, Steve

Lol

@@politonno2499 I’m not sure if this is worthy of a whoosh

@@sniperchess it “flew” again after it exploded

"Oh, they're showing the outtakes"

Yes

+

-

>=

y=Mx+b

Rapid unscheduled disassembly

Rapid unscheduled disassembly

You da man! Or woman!

"Belly flop to tail down" Do you mean the flip

Thank you

Thank you

It did fly and belly flop again

@@googleacc7472 Yeah, just upside down

30 foot hop and belly flop

Said litterally every commenter ever.

Once sn10 realized that he was too tired, he could only take a small leap.

From the explosion it looks to me like methane and oxygen (LOX?) mixed in the bottom tank. Maybe the fuel pipes in the center transferred the shock to the methane "header" tank, or the tank sprung a leak in the skirt area. I don't think the methane header tank exploded, due to two reasons: how would it get ignited? There should be no hot objects near it. And also, if the small tank had exploded, it probably would have blown the vehicle into two sections. Instead, it seems like the thrust/skirt section was blown out the bottom.

She was dumping a ton of LOX. No doubt from too much force on the thrust puck after landing on her engines. Likely ruptured the downpipe. If she had a respectable landing system, she'd probably been ok

I think if methane got into the lox tank there would be a bigger boom?

@@iain3713 The tanks should have been mostly empty, except for some leftover gaseous CH4/LOX

@@eric3434 i have a doubt why it’s “she”

Good luck to you😇

@@PhilipKaskela Or you could go watch any other live stream that covers this. That's just how they are, if you don't like it watch someone else lol.

Their pussy sounding SOY BOYS. God i miss the days of Jack King and. Niel krants.

🤦🏻‍♂️

That's the BBC modus operandi. Just slag everything off, look for any faults and ignore any success.

hello🐱‍👤 if you like cats pass me see kisses 🎥📺

Sn6: sad noises

They are redesigning the landing legs SpaceX and Elon said they are not happy with them

Scheduled. They blew it up intentionally.

@@terrylyn They didnt. It wasn't the FTS. It was most likely a fuel leak. Why would they intentionally explode their first successful vehicle?

@@sixpompano8660 For safety reasons. There was a fire and methane leaking all over. Safer to have it explode than let any people near it.

@@terrylyn You can see in this video and in the other views that the FTS wasnt triggered in any way. It also blew up from the bottom even though the charges for the FTS are towards the center of the craft. This further shows it wasnt the FTS. Plus the fire had subsided when it blew up

It is actually unintended additional flight

I agree it was a magnificent flight profile, but it wasn’t a particularly soft touchdown and it was on fire.

@@paulwilson8367 Technically it was a soft landing - the vessel remained in control throughout, velocity was close to nominal and it didn't rapidly disassemble itself when it made contact with the ground. Yes, the aspects surrounding landing (such as failed landing legs/deployment of them) led to its demise - but the landing itself was considered soft.

More streamlined.

Not so sure they did. All 3 relit initially, that was good. Shutting down 2 instead of 1? And an inflight fire is a very bad thing.

@@paulwilson8367 Yes you're right. The key is why was there a fire near the engines a few metres from the ground before touchdown?

No I'm pretty sure all of the engines worked flawlessly and the flight profile went all according to plan. The only thing that wasn't norminal is that the last engine wouldn't produce more thrust when commanded due to partial helium ingestion. And that wasn't really the engines fault.

How was this 2 years ago already..?

My congratulations to you SpaceX, my one criticism is that why in the hell aren’t they putting big legs on these prototypes to save them, later they can put on smaller legs when they get the thing totally dialed in. Sure they will pay a weight penalty, but it doesn’t matter on these Proto types because they aren’t really going anywhere, the more important thing is to save the spaceship for analysis, physical analysis while it is still in one piece. Please spacex, Put on some big legs, you have plenty of data to show that the little legs leave you with nothing but leaning towers, and so far you’re lucky this is the only one that tipped over, many others almost did!

@@steveperreira5850 you're commenting on somebody else's comment. You need to comment on SpaceX UKposts channel, or Elon Musk's twitter.

@@steveperreira5850 Elon has already stated that the legs are inadequate on this particular SN10, and on SN11 or even SN12 they will be a more advanced series of landing legs.. ✌

@@chancethompson8686 There isn't any SN12. SN12, 13, 14 are canceled. The next iterations start at SN15.

@@-danR Do you know that for a fact, or are you just trolling for a response?? Why would they jump from 12 to 15..?? For superstitious reasons?? Show me the link to where you found this info, please..

I wouldn’t say it was a set back it exploding, chances are they would of just scrapped it. Plus it was epic u gotta admit lol 🔥

YES

Hi

@@skm8838 yep

It just kinda deflated. 😆

@@Akeldama9 ikr lol. The previous 2 went everywhere.

Idk. They'll have to cut it up

@@Akeldama9 Just roll it up and toss it in the back of the van , daddy will stack it away when we are home.

And then there’s SN11...

What was impossible?

@@calvinsylveste8474 well, as of today it's not impossible anymore to land a 164-foot space vehicle, isn't it?

@@RobertDeloyd I wasn't impossible 40 years ago, why would it be yesterday?

"Some" is a bit of an understatement 😀

Something still wasn’t right on that touchdown. Landing legs issue aside,

There was partial helium ingestion (ironic ik) which caused the one engine to not deliver enough thrust when commanded.

hello🐱‍👤 if you like cats pass me see kisses 🎥📺

Technically 3 times since it did a small bounce when it landed (the first time)

Pretty sure the poor guy had to change his underwear after it landed, sounds like he made a pretty big mess

Obviously

I cannot always words

@@googleacc7472 obviously

@@googleacc7472 but when I do I starship

yep, and 'thunderbirds'

@@kailaniandi Thunderbirds are blow ( intro music).

That's right, the launch, descend and the belly-flop was perfect since SN8. They even blow the ships in the right spot.